Debate shall begin NOW and end 18 February 2021 at 20:00 GMT.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet
First of all I would like to thank Councillor Juvinal for his proposal concerning these topics which are really controversial if you think about it, but I sadly have to oppose to its implementation and further validation as an European Union law. The 'slum' as we might all think would suit perfectly a part of the city of Madrid, called La Cañada Real. Let me show you a photo from La Cañada Real to show you how's life over there.
Tusk gets a photo from his folder and shows it to the other councillors from his seat
Everything there is ruinous, isn't it? Well, I need to tell you that isn't true. Recently, this appeared on the Radio Televisión Española's news programme. As we can see, there's a BWM and a Porsche. Well, they could have been lucky and maybe their cars were the only thing they kept before moving there. It might be, if it wasn't for the following data I would like to tell you about: there were more than a hundred Police operations because of a fraud against the electric companies and drug dealing. Furthermore, this has made the electric ompanies to shut down the supply of electricy, because the drug platations overload the electric network.
Now, you will probably think: Why doesn't the city of Madrid or even the Government offer them something to get those people out of there? Well, the Government and also the city of Madrid have been doing this for years, but the neighbours oppose. So, we have several problems here: an act which forces my country to make those people houses legal when their houses are not legal, which forces my country and any other member state to give them resources if we don't get their cooperation. And I wanted to ask the Councillor, what's next? Will we see a "Squatter Rights Act", which would against the private property rights most of our nations recognise? Also, the fact that you can't move them from there makes the situation even worse. So no, Cllr. Juvinal, they shouldn't be regulated, because then we will have squatters asking for the same thing, and finally, the EU will become the house of anarchism.
Also Councillor, just a reminder: these acts just give wings to populists with a strong anti-European message. Let's try to do the opposite on this chamber, Councillor. Let's not try to make those ideologises rise in both representation and popularity. Thank you.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain
Councillor Tusk, I both understand and do not understand your concerns regarding this act.
Yes, slums are crime-ridden, and in many cases illegal. But from what I have read, neither the Government or the city of Madrid plan to demolish this slum that you are speaking of. What this act aims to do is simply to ensure that they never suddenly go in, and forcibly evict everyone living inside, demolishing their houses.
I am not answering your second question simply because A - the answer to it is obvious - and B - it is a fallacy.
But moving on, the primary reason for this act is not to make the slums legal; it is simply to prevent horrific human rights abuses. If necessary, I am open to amending clauses 1b and IV; however, I am worried about racial or political motivation in urban renewal and slum clearance.
Kelarōn Juvinal
Councillor for the Union of Syndicates
((OOC: ignore links))
Your efforts are commendable Councillor Juvinal. Slums are indeed a mennace to industrialized societies and I sympathize with this bill as someone who has had people in his life that fell victims to these gross practices of ownership.
However the Ruthenish people cannot support the European Union enforcing regulations such as these. These sort of policies should be left for the nation of the respective local polity to address. Regulations are not for the EU to enforce. The Europe is a very diverse region with different situations, peoples and needs. And specific measures such as regulations should be left to more local levels of governance, based on their own situations. There is little need for more red tape in Europolis hindering nation states from making their own laws, especially laws that require extensive clarification and regulation. I am sure you would agree Councilors that we cannot approach regional issues with a 'one-size-fits-all' approach. And that's what I would like to avoid.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund
Evidently, stating that this act enforces regulations may not have been the best idea. What this act essentially does is simply stop sudden mass evictions of neighborhoods while at the same time reducing discriminatory clearance or removal. I did assume that it would be member-states that would be enforcing this regulation, rather than the Union at large, but evidently this may not be true.
As a result, I propose the following amendment:
AMENDMENT I
SECTION III: ENFORCEMENT*
I. This act shall be enforced by member-states.
II. Failure to enforce this act may be tried in the European Court of Justice.
James Roscoe I propose the following ammendments:
Ammendment I:
I. Slum clearance and urban renewal are prohibited if they take place without a plan for the adequate rehousing of those living within the areas to be cleared.
a) Such a plan must be promulgated to the public at least ninety days before the clearance of a slum or an area to be “renewed.” At the same time, it must be ensured that all residents of a slum, or as many as is possible, are informed of it.
b) Such plans must be made with the cooperation of the residents of the area to be cleared or renewed.
Ammendment II:
II. Legal residents evicted by slum clearance or urban renewal must be compensated at at least market value for their removal.
III. Urban renewal and slum clearance must not result in the intentional and permanent displacement of residents
IV. Urban renewal and slum clearance must occur in cooperation with those living inside areas to be renewed or cleared.
III. Residents must be safely elsewhere, temporarily, during the physical clearance of an area.
In response, I propose the following amendment:
Amendment III:
II. Legal residents evicted by slum clearance or urban renewal must be compensated for their removal.
III. Urban renewal and slum clearance must not result in the intentional and permanent displacement of residents.
IV. Urban renewal and slum clearance must occur in cooperation with those living inside areas to be renewed or cleared.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe:"While I am for protecting residents section III is dangerous and could stop construction of factory expansions, business locations and public projects like colleges,parks and railways as it could be viewed under this law as intentionally and permanently displacing residents. This section must go and displacement must be allowed to allow change of land uses in the public interest."
Councilor Juvinal, perhaps I should clarify my position. I am not of the belief that this type of policy should be imposed on member states by Europolis. Having member states enforce EU regulations does not change the fact they are regulations from the European Union. Again, its should be localities and member states that make ordinances to address and not the responsibility of a regional government. Different members states will inevitably have different situations surrounding slums and discrimination and those localities should make policies accordingly. Councillor, if you really want to make a difference for the working class and the poor, then support direct action to get their local governments to make fairer housing regulations and move towards restoration of run-down urban neighborhoods. There are plenty in Ruthund that I have supported to achieve these ends and some of them have succeeded in restoring former slums. Frankly, housing regulations should not be coming from a regional government top-down, rather it should be the people making these regulations from the bottom-up.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund
I withdraw my amendments and support those of Mr. Mizrachi-Roscoe.
Addressing Councillor Zatoni, yes, regulations should be made from the bottom up; however, I am not comfortable in dropping this legislation entirely. Politically and discriminatorily-motivated clearances and renewals must be prohibited with speed. This Union should not and cannot tolerate violations of human rights.
Kelarōn Juvinal
Councillor for the Union of Syndicates
In its current form, this act is unlikely to accomplish anything. As a result, I propose the following amendment, which would have the added benefit of filling a gaping hole in the existing UDoHR.
Section I: DEFINITIONS:
Slum: a residential area of high-density composed primarily of informal housing, with poor to non-existent infrastructure.
Slum clearance: the forcible demolition of slums, or the mass eviction of residents from them
Urban renewal: the destruction or improvement of areas considered decayed as to make way for economic and physical development.
Adequate rehousing: the resettlement of displaced individuals in housing able to protect individuals from the elements, with access to basic infrastructure.
Population transfer: the forcible movement, imposed by an authority, of a large group of people from one region to another
Section II: REGULATIONS:
Population transfer is prohibited. No state or other actor may undertake actions that result or cause such a thing.
I. Slum clearance and urban renewal are prohibited if they take place without a plan for the adequate rehousing of those living within the areas to be cleared.
a) Such a plan must be promulgated to the public at least ninety days before the clearance of a slum or an area to be “renewed.” At the same time, it must be ensured that all residents of a slum, or as many as is possible, are informed of it.
, b) Such plans must be made with the cooperation of the residents of the area to be cleared or renewed.
II. Legal residents evicted by slum clearance or urban renewal must be compensated for their removal.
III. Urban renewal and slum clearance must not result in the intentional and permanent displacement of residents.
IV. Urban renewal and slum clearance must occur in cooperation with those living inside areas to be renewed or cleared.
V. Residents must be safely elsewhere, temporarily, during the physical clearance of an area.
SECTION III: ENFORCEMENT
I. This act shall be enforced by member-states.
II. Failure to enforce this act may be tried in the European Court of Justice.
Councillor Juvinal, if you're going to make such an amendment, I suggest you do it as an amendment to the UDoHR instead of proposing it as an Act.
Councillor Aylin Gökçen of Alkharya
"The Empire of Inimicus will not support legislation which deprives it of the basic national right to plan urban cityscapes the way it wants to. In Inimicus, urban development is the explicit prerogative of our great seven provinces, whose administrations have ensured, and continue to ensure, that this constitutionally-mandated duty is performed with utmost correctness and propriety. Taking this right away from them would be an affront to the Inimician Constitutional settlement.
With Cllr Juvinal's latest amendment, which basically scraps the entire Act and replaces it with a general rule of human rights, the Act becomes virtually obsolete -- it should no longer bear the name it does and should, I agree with Cllr Gökçen, instead, be submitted as an amendment to the UDoHR, if at all. Inimicus will not support this or any amendments proposed thus far."
Cllr Sir Augustus Barrington
Temporary Councillor for the Empire of Inimicus
"We have a large public that is very ignorant about public affairs and very susceptible to simplistic slogans or proposals who appear out of nowhere, just to be impulse a personal prerrogative of populist ideas, have no track record, but mouth appealing. The Kingdom of Montenbourg will not support this piece of legislation with all due respect to Cllr. Juvinal."
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg
First of all I'll answer Cllr. Juvinal by saying it's true that nobody wants to destroy it, but I'm sure the city of Madrid would destroy it if the citizens wanted to move away. Slums won't be done legal with this act, obviously, but they will have more protection towards state plans or local plans, or at least they would have had until the new amendments came out. For those who might be lost, I'm referring to Scetion 1b, which says: "Such plans must be made with the cooperation of the residents of the area to be cleared or renewed." or Section IV: "Urban renewal and slum clearance must occur in cooperation with those living inside areas to be renewed or cleared." No need to say why I do agree with the 2nd part of Cllr. Zatoni's words, and especially these words: "These sort of policies should be left for the nation of the respective local polity to address." This is another reason why I don't support this act: The European Union integrationism is not being considered as something correct, just look at the Commission elections. I'm a proud Europeist, but if we want to keep the EU working, we then need to protect some of the rights member states have.
Then came the amendments show: If the act proposal wasn't outrageous enough, now the act needs to be enforced and you could be taken to the ECoJ if it isn't enforced. Then Section IV was removed in another amendment from Councillor Juvinal while Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe tried to amend the disastrous act. But my surprise came when Cllr. Juvinal changed everything from the act and made a new one out of nowhere. Councillor, if you think the act it's unuseful, then please withdraw this one and make a new one instead. And I also third, because they have been already seconded, Cllr. Gökçen's words. If you want to do such an amendment, then please submit an amendment to the UDoHR.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain
I withdraw this act.
Kelarōn Juvinal
Councillor for the Union of Syndicates
This proposal has been officially withdrawn from the Council floor.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet
James Mizrachi-Roscoe:"While I am for protecting residents section III is dangerous and could stop construction of factory expansions, business locations and public projects like colleges,parks and railways as it could be viewed under this law as intentionally and permanently displacing residents. This section must go and displacement must be allowed to allow change of land uses in the public interest."
The Kingdom of Spain
